Biden: Denying Climate Change ‘Almost Like Denying Gravity’

The Washington Times ^ | March 07, 2015 | Phillip Swarts

[Steelfish]

Biden: Denying Climate Change ‘Almost Like Denying Gravity’

By Phillip Swarts -March 7, 2015

Vice President Joe Biden slammed those who question climate change, saying that ignoring the scientific evidence is “almost like denying gravity now.”

“I think it’s close to mindless,” Mr. Biden said in a preview clip for the upcoming season of HBO’s Vice.

The vice president pointed specifically to 2012’s Hurricane Sandy as an example of how climate change is making the world’s weather patterns more severe.

“All of a sudden people who were saying it couldn’t happen; they’re now knowing they have to plan for another one of these storms, and another and another and another,” Mr. Biden said, Mediaite reported Friday.

He also pointed to Wall Street financial institutions that are starting to plan and make investments based on the effects of climate change.

“When the financial institutions begin to price in the cost of carbon for cost of doing business, you know it’s reality,” Mr. Biden said.

According to NASA, atmospheric data for the past 650,000 years shows that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has never been higher than 300 parts per million — until 1950. Now, in 2014, the level is estimated to be at 400 parts per million.

[Telepathic Intruder]

"Humans have mass so they do cause gravity."

Yes, but the mass that make up humans was already present in the Earth prior to humans, so we did not create the mass that creates the gravity. Double touché

But seriously, I'll admit humans effect the environment, but to what degree? A single volcano can produce more CO₂ than humans have ever produced. And who's to say how harmful CO₂ actually is? There would be no life on Earth without it. Those little seemingly unnecessary details are not even addressed.

[jonrick46]

For a more complete explanation of your graph, go here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

An excellent article that refutes the Man Made Global Warming hoax. My pie chart tells me that the increase in CO2 levels could not come from man’s small part in the pie. The above link shows the failure of the CO2 argument and the true picture of atmospheric cO2.

[Yaelle]

How can anyone question climate change? The pond you’re skating on you swam in a few months ago. Sure as heck the climate changes. I’m sure that is what the developmentally disabled veep meant.

[Yaelle]

Global warming is as legitimate as Biden’s hairline.

---

Little known fact: since his scrotal weave in the late 90s, Biden’s balls have been really smart.

[VeniVidiVici]

These freaking nobodies who believe that “Hurricane Sandy” was the end of all storms. What a joke. In 2004? 2005? we had 32 freaking named storms. And the Warmists were off the deep end swearing that global warming was killing us.

Then .... nothing. No major storms at all after. Even “Hurricane Sandy” is called “Superstorm Sandy” because it wimped out at landfall.

Pussies in NY can’t take a little rain and storm surge without calling “super”.

[SamAdams76]

In New York, we are getting a thaw next week. It might even hit 50 degrees.

We are going to call it Spring Thaw "Ernie."

It's more proof that global warming is upon us.

[Bellflower]

Dah, nobody denies climate change. It changes about every second or less at least slightly. Their “climate change” mantra keeps them covered no matter what happens.

[jughandle]

The earths climate has been changing since the beginning of time. It’s the man-made line that is the B.S.

[palmer]

I read that WUWT article when it came out 5 years ago. I remembered the chart in it, looked it up and posted it above. The article says:

The whole AGW belief system is based upon positive water vapour feedback starting from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm and not before

That means the warming is only from the CO2 by adding up the short bars in the chart. It is fairly certain in theory that the CO2 is causing that warming and even more likely that the CO2 rise is manmade. So that part is not a "hoax". I have to say "in theory" because there could be negative feedback. But Archibald is not presuming either positive or negative feedback, but simply the warming shown in the chart. It is not significant warming (adding up those bars) but nor is it a trivial 0.0028 like your pie chart. I would dump the pie chart since both the CO2 piece is too small and the manmade piece is way too small (likely due to not using net natural, only one way natural)

[palmer]

A single volcano can produce more CO2 than humans have ever produced.

Often repeated but definitely incorrect. A single large volcano (Pinatubo) produced about 42 Mt of CO2. see http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/gerlach/ In contrast man produces 82 Mt a day (about 30Gt a year)

[Telepathic Intruder]

Regardless of the bare numbers, the burden of proof is on the AGW adherents that a particular storm or warming/cooling trend is a result of human activity vs. naturally caused. The trouble is that to them, the lack of storms or sudden changes is also a sign of AGW. In fact, anything that happens is a sign of AGW. That is not proper science because for every theory, there must be a way to support as well as disprove it. For AGW there is only support no matter what the evidence is. That’s how you can tell bad science.

[fedupjohn]

#AlGoreBullWarming !

[Dogbert41]

Nothing like facts to get in the way of a good story!

[fourscoreandfree]

Recent Vostok Antarctic ice cores comprise a record of the earth’s atmosphere going back 420,000 years. Scientific analyses of these cores demolish the notion that man-made activities are responsible for global warming. There is a regularity of about 100,000 years in the peaks of CO2 and CH4 within the same range, roughly, 200ppm - 400ppm, and a lagging increase or decrease in temperatures. Man has had nothing to do with this complex multi-variable natural cycle stretching back hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. Orbital deviation is one cause. Solar variation is another. There are others yet to be fully understood.

[jonrick46]

For a great discussion of the CO2 myth and AGW, go here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

[The_Media_never_lie]

What a really stupid man.

[The_Media_never_lie]

Dementia is terrible!

[kiryandil]

They've invented TWO perpetual motion machines:

The first one punches Biden in the face whenever he says something stupid.

The second one punches the Sunni Conmander-And-Sheik in the face whenever he lies.

Some say that the two machines will generate more power than the Solyndra Corporation...

[palmer]

That's all true. The minor amount of warming globally from CO2 cannot possibly change the weather. Consider for example that the average temperature of the planet can rise or fall a full 0.1C in a week or two. That is the same amount of warming from a decade of CO2 plus feedback (weather) so the alleged feedback can't really be feedback.

Instead, it is the average of planetary weather that determines the average planetary temperature. CO2 can only be a small player in the long term average.

[palmer]

There is a regularity of about 100,000 years in the peaks of CO2 and CH4 within the same range, roughly, 200ppm - 400ppm, and a lagging increase or decrease in temperatures.

That's true except it was around 200 or less to about 300 max:

Consider that the temperature rise or fall that caused those CO2 rises and falls was about 8-10C. That means each rise of about 100ppm was caused by a 10C rise in temperature. The latest rise in CO2 from 280 to 400 (and rising 2.5 per year) would have to be preceded by a 10C rise or more in temperature. That has not been the case. The natural rise from the Little Ice Age to the present is about 1C. That means the rest of the rise in the CO2 is manmade.

That manmade rise is supported by estimates of CO2 production from fossil fuel burning, cement making, etc. It is supported by very rough estimates of the natural flux. It is not proven to be manmade (proof is essentially impossible in science). But the evidence points to a manmade CO2 rise. The ongoing rise of about 25 ppm per decade would have to be preceded by natural warming of 2.5C a few hundred years ago. That is clearly not the case. Therefore the CO2 rise is manmade.

The next question is so what? That is the only question that matters, and the answer is that is doesn't matter very much how much new CO2 we add. See the chart I posted earlier in the thread showing the logarithmic effect of added CO2.